Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 3, 2010 8:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Any 1973 haters: Tell rises to the challenge...

OK, old hat for most of you, but I will try to explain again why the Winterland Boxed Set sits, and sits...and sits...yes, after ONE listen thru...It has not been opened again. What's it been, a yr or more? I don't even know. It anchors the bottom of my wall of DEAD CDs and it's hard for me to even bend over and pick it out. Fortunately, I never do.

What's wrong with it? It is the Wake of the Flood jazz-fusion-Donna-inluenced-Bob's lost his voice-Jerry's noodling in the background thing that gets me...

No in your face, high energy, amazing tone for Jerry. Trust me, my lead guitar playing friends point to any number of amazing things he does in the Nov 73 shows, but they impact me about as much as Joe Satriani (sp?) or any of the other "greats" (don't write in, k? I know they are great...this is about ME).

Now, part is the song writing...Bob has come into his own, but really, I think that you can take Weather (I skip it, always...and recall, I lived thru it), BlThWind, LLRain, and just tweak them a bit and you end up with HHtheFool (me?). I really think Hunter is the DEAD, and Hunter is 1970.

Sure, HCSuns and Eyes has a few lyrical moments, but we are not that far away from Terrapin with that kind of writing.

I really do see a steady decline, with as Rob notes, a few exceptions (ScaBeg).

But, it is the sound that just doesn't do anything for me...they really have changed, and the muffled, low key, background music production of many a DPs of 72-79 captures the lack of intensity (though I always tink it has to be the mix???)...

Now, those of yu that dredge up my initial posts right after I rec'd the 73 boxed set, settle down--you do know how I try to please folks around here, right? Just ask Jacky Hughes and his twin bro...the Zappa fan.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cliff Hucker Date: Mar 3, 2010 3:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: 1973 (Top Tens)

I give William Tell alot of respect for sticking to his guns! He knows what he likes, and he is not going to let any of you change is mind! I'm proud of you Guillaume!

I do agree with him that the off the hook energy of the "Early Era" that appeals to him so much, has diminished somewhat after 1971. And I personally will take something from '68 over '73 any day!

That said, I dont hate 1973. In fact I enjoy the jazzy excursions and segues from the year quite a bit and I find the bare-wires intensity of the earlier performances has been replaced with a more polished sophistication that was not as prevalent before 1972. Sorry Guillaume! I do find the first sets from '73 to be a bit too long and somewhat formulaic, but this is hardly a complaint.

I love top ten lists and this is a perfect time to compare tasting notes on this excellent vintage. Lets see your favorites from 1973...

03/24/73 (100)
06/22/73 (98+)
09/11/73 (99)
10/19/73 (100)
11/10/73 (99)
11/11/73 (100)
11/14/73 (98-99)
11/30/73 (99)
12/06/73 (100)
12/18/73 (99)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Mar 3, 2010 5:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 1973 (Top Tens)

Cliff I always copy out your top tens and haven't been disappointed (though you crack me up, seeing hundreds of shows for 10 years that "all sucked").

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 4, 2010 12:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 1973 (Top Tens)

Watch out...next thing you know, he might send you a little shark tooth necklace (he actually promised me the next one though...).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: RBNW....new and improved! Date: Mar 4, 2010 2:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 1973 (Top Tens)

Very surprised that 2-9 or 2-15 didn't make your top ten. ??

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cliff Hucker Date: Mar 4, 2010 6:36am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 1973 (Top Tens)

Well Rich, we seem to go through this everytime I post a top ten list. Everyone wonders why their favorites are not my lists, but they dont seem to be able to come up with their own top tens.

But its MY top ten list, and its fucking hard Rich, for every year to narrow it down to only ten. Of course there are more than ten shows for every single year that could concievably be on anyones list. That what I find so much fun about top ten lists and comparing mine to others...

Regarding 1973:

Personally, I dont think that 2/9 (94 pts) is anywhere close to being a top ten. However 2/25 is an extraordinary show I score at 99-100 pts, and if its on yours or anyone elses top ten, I surely cant be critical of that!

What about 6/10? I think Monte's favorite show is over rated (98 pts), but thats just my opinion and plenty of folks consider it one of the all time greats. 11/17 is a phenomenal show that I score at 99 pts, certainly worthy of being included in the top ten of '73, so is 12/2 (99 pts)

I include 9/11 in my top ten for '73, but I know many folks dont consider it a top ten, just my opinion. Lets see your top ten...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: GennyBenni Date: Mar 3, 2010 12:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Any 1973 haters: Tell rises to the challenge...

All I can say is... I feel sorry for you.

I think I understand your gripes, but to say there is less "energy" (not sure if you said that specifically, but it's often said, so I'll attribute it to you) in '73 than in the years up to '71 is ludicrous. Seriously man, how many times can you listen to 12/29/68, as awesome as it is, and not yearn for something with a different flavor? The band had an AMAZING amount of energy throughout this year (1973) and the next, and they were exploring territory that was completely new to them. It's unbelievably exciting!

Look at it from their perspective: 1968 also very exploratory in that they were inventing a new world of music. But from Jerry's or anyone else's perspective, you can only play the HELL out of the other one so many times before it starts getting boring. The years to come saw them reaching in all sorts of directions no one foresaw.

I'm not pretending that I'll convert you, nor am I delusional enough to think that I've made a terribly big impression on you... but maybe, from time to time, give the year another chance? Eyes of the World is, in my opinion, the single greatest song Jerry ever wrote in terms of showcasing his guitar abilities (and his phrasing is superior to that of anything from 1968). 1973 has a hell of a lot to offer, way more than I even know.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 4, 2010 12:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Any 1973 haters: Even LiA didn't pick it to start.....

GB--I take your sentiment with humility and appreciation. But of course, don't waste your time...not in a bad way mind you, but just think if you'd said "but Tell, you don't appreciate 95!" (you'd have just as much cred to stand on with that, right...???? Right? Of course). This is where it is all just opinion...and I go for the democratic approach. For all the folks I have played their music for, there is NEVER an individual that does not pick the early era...seriously.

Take LiA if you don't like my view on this: what did he listen to that changed his mind about what the DEAD could do?

Anyone?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Mar 4, 2010 2:33pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: who, me?

Hmm? Why pick me out?

It happened to be Dark Star on Two From the Vault that converted me....but maybe if I'd first heard Dicks Picks One from '73, that might've done the trick too.
I went on my initial live-Dead buying spree without knowing squat about their live history (I was completely unfamiliar with their songs), so I did listen to all that later stuff that was available - the Dick's Picks from '85, '91, '92, Nightfall from '89, Dozin' from '90... And in general, my reaction was "WTF? Why did anyone go to see this?"
So my preference for the early years is 'objectively' earned, if that's what you're looking for.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cliff Hucker Date: Mar 4, 2010 7:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

"I did listen to all that later stuff that was available...my reaction was "WTF? Why did anyone go to see this?"

I often wonder the same...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 4, 2010 3:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Ah--yep, that's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear! "Objectively earned"!

And you do know I may come off poorly at times, Will Rodgers compliments aside, in my web language, so please don't ever imagine I am picking on you or some such...I just know others here are still getting over the "I didn't see them live" comment the other day...I think it speaks volumes.

Volumes as in the thesis I have maintained here for yrs: contrary to the notion espoused by some here abouts that biases pervade all we experience, to the effect that folks often rank the shows they attended highly, I maintain that anyone doing this (ie, seriously evaluating the music) with any objectivity gets beyond that very quickly...and you are a great case in point. Me (not that in ANY way I measure up to the detailed and informative kinds of analyses you two provide here!) and CLIFF too...we have settled on shows that none of us attended as our favs (or at least we rank many of them highly).

This no doubt comes off poorly as if I am trying to say "hey, if you all were objective you'd agree with us that the early era is the best!" and that's not the point...the point is that we can be objective and sort thru shows and pick and choose based on what we hear now, independent of what we saw, or didn't see...

That's all I was getting at...thanks again for sharing with us.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billydlions Date: Mar 4, 2010 7:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

I'm not sure I'm buying what you're selling today Tell (Jots would call bullshit on you here). So if I think 1981 is the best year am I objective since I started seeing shows in 1987? Is it fair to compare 1973 with 1995 when 99% of heads would pick one over the other? I think Genny makes a good point that you have boxed yourself in such a narrow range that how can that not lead to boredom? Well, to each his own I guess.

By the way, I'm probably one of the few that partially agree with you. While I think 1973 is a very well played year, I see your point that it lacks energy, and perhaps it's how we define energy. Jerry's guitar tone is clean, the jams are more jazzy (and spacey) vs the hard driving shows from 68-71. 1976 is another year that seems slows to me, and perhaps its more tempo related as opposed to quality playing. As you know, I really enjoy the hard charging coke years of the early 80's, which to me have the energy and high quality playing- so I guess I could say I feel sorry for you (and Genny?) as well....but who really cares? Blast away 12-29-68 tonight!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 4, 2010 8:31pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Hey BD--I've been selling so much tonight, wanted to make sure which load of my BS you were taking issue with (politely of course).

"Jots would call bullshit on you here" Ha! Yes, he probably would--good catch.

"how can that not lead to boredom?" True of course, but I suppose if I have 400 shows (whatever it is), and the "30 yr fan" has 2500, I suppose I am only going to get bored 80% faster, right? Still, I get around that with plenty of other interests, so no real problem there...

"By the way, I'm probably one of the few that partially agree with you." Yes!

But, as to your primary point (this is where I am guessing), did you wonder what I meant by "the objectivity and shows you attended thesis"?

All I am getting at with that biz is that some folks regularly mention that the shows peeps attended get high marks because they were there. IE, these folks admit that bias enters into it. I have no problem with that; it's probably true.

What I am always pointing out is that other folks, or the same folks when they want to make an effort to try to be objective, end up ranking shows they did NOT attend highly too. No big deal there really--not saying it is the "truth" that they have discovered or some such...nor that great shows couldn't have been attended or any such sillyness...and in fact, it might be that someone that went from 72 thru 78 might, like you, end up after listening to everything here, say, "hey, I really think that 82 is the best!". I think that is possible, that's all--they could analyze it "objectively" and come to that conclusion.

Now, I do take pride, and a bit of tongue in cheek satisfaction, in noting that most folks that do what I just described (like me), end up saying, "well, I didn't see them, but now that I have listened to it all, I like 68 over 92 (the only yr I saw them)" or some such.

Does it really mean that 68 is the best? No, as we all know, it is subjective in large measure. But, I do think that you could tick off some (just some) objective criteria and use it as backing for your position (like what I always try to do: say, "better voice for Jerry!" or "great song writing by Hunter!" or "higher energy level for Jerry" and so on and so forth). Of course, you, or whomever, could say "better technical playing by Jerry in 73" or "tighter arrangements for songs" or whatever for some later year, and then as you note, it would come down to what we like...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billydlions Date: Mar 4, 2010 9:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

It seemed like you were implying that anyone who was not influenced by the shows they attended, would gravitate towards the early years. That was my main point I was trying to make. I also took issue with you throwing out 1995 to Genny comparing that to 1973, which I didnt think was a fair counterpoint.

But I admit that I'm no more objective than the next guy although I rarely listen to any shows from the era that I attended. I, like you, prefer a more up-tempo style of music. I think that's why I took an instant liking to 1971 and I also enjoy 1968 (although the repetitiveness of songs keeps me from listening exclusively to these years). That's probably why we both like Cream better then EC solo. I also grew up in NJ in the 80's where metal was ruling at the time.....so all these influences somehow came together and when I heard shows from 1981 I was instantly sold on the aggressive (faster) style they were playing and of course I love the JGB from 1979-1984, which is in a similar mode.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 5, 2010 7:10am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

I'm not quite sure why anyone really cares about objectivity in one's musical preferences. We like what we like. Who cares why?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 7:33am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Oh, I think it matters in a big way...otherwise, why even talk about it? Seriously? If all we did was to say "I like this" and it had NO impact on you, and you said "I like that" and vice versa, it really wouldn't be very interesting...

I've said many, many times that the human condition does in fact NOT work in that fashion...as much as it will irritate any number of folks, there ARE rules for art, music etc. It is NOT all whim and fancy.

That's why there are museums, awards, etc., etc. Now, we may find that at certain times certain genres don't catch our fancy, BUT it is NOT all up for grabs as the Post Modernists suggest...it is all NOT just narrative.

At least we better all hope it is not.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 5, 2010 9:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

There may as you say, be rules – but are they rules that can be applied across the board in all circumstances allowing us to make these objective judgements? Is it necessary to know what the 'rules' are to have an appreciation of the art? Take a look at this clip of Derek Bailey. What rules is he following?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn_m8PzSWV0

No matter how hard I try to listen to Bailey I just don’t ‘get it’. In fact, I have no clue what ‘it’ actually is. My jazz guitar playing friend practically worshipped Derek Bailey, thought he was one of the finest practitioners of the six-string guitar who ever picked up the instrument. Unlike me, he did get it. What to me appears to be almost random string-strangling was, so I was told, a highly constructed piece of music requiring real talent to perform. Subjectively, I think it verges on being a noise and I don’t really like it. Objectively? I don’t have the tools to judge, but I think that even if I did know the rules I still wouldn’t like it that much.

So, what are the rules that will allow a fair-minded, unbiased listener to conclude that, say, a 68 St Stephen is to be preferred to a 73 Eyes of the World? Can’t be formulated in my belief. Objectivity, especially in terms of art, will only take you so far. Objectively, you could probably tie most people down to an admission that Phil Lesh is a better bass player than Sid Vicious ever was in terms both of technical ability and inventiveness, but Lesh would have out and out sucked in the Sex Pistols.

Whim and fancy just aren’t going to go away.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 10:39am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

I would refer back to the great debate on photo art...in the end, save for JOTS, I think we all agreed that there are "good" photos and "not so good" photos...

All I am saying is, and just as vaguely, "we" (humankind) do in fact share many of the same notions of beauty...this HAS been established across many cultures from a visual perspective eg (ie, many tribes with no known contact rank birds as "unattractive to attractive" in a scale so similar to your Brit Bird Watching Geeks it'd make your head spin...

This is not to say I can define it for various artforms, and I do believe whim and fancy enter into as well...but, I will go to my grave convinced it is not ALL whim and fancy, and I know that you work hard at what you do, knowing it to be true at some level, or some hack like me could outsell you in your biz...but that only happens every once in a while, right?

I will say, "...though I can't define it, I know it when I see it" and I think the human condition is what gives each and everyone of us the ability to do this in any number of artistic endeavors...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 5, 2010 11:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Just been looking at your earlier exchange with midnight, which, for whatever reason, I had entirely missed. Sometimes the exchanges in this forum make my brain throb - and that is entirely a good thing.

So, quick question: is the possibility of there being an objective assessment of an artform not dependent on a shared subjectivity? i.e. we agree based on a pooling of our individual responses that thing A has worth while thing B does not?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Mar 5, 2010 12:24pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Okay then. Which one of you is "thing A"?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 12:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

That's "thang" (you have to recall the scene from Serpico [great flick I always thought] to get it).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 12:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Why you little smarty pants--I think that gets at the REAL question: the degree to which this was codified long ago as hunter gatherers, OR the degree to which particular ways in which our minds work were selected "for" (as in language).

I am surprised no one called me on the "culture" (= environment) vs "genes" (heredity) biz already...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jglynn1.2 Date: Mar 5, 2010 9:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Is that a cover of the Dead tuning?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 5, 2010 9:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

hah! The thing with those Bailey types is that they sound like that all the time - at least the Dead eventually swung into Wharf Rat or something.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Mar 5, 2010 7:47am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Don't get me started on museums and awards. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a joke, and I didn't exactly need the GD to win a Grammy (in 1997!) to know how I felt about them.

But please tell me dear Mr. Tell... What exactly are the "rules for art"? I'm dying to know. And I can't believe I've made it this far in life without someone letting me in on such important information.

But if you need an explanation as to why I can appreciate 80's and 90's GD, then I'll tell you: The Dead were the only band that did what they did. Even in the 90's there still wasn't any other band like them. If I could have gone back to '68 or '71 or '73 to see one of those shows then I damn well would have. But I knew from the very first show that I saw (in 1990) that Jerry could still pull a rabbit out of a hat every once in a while. That's why I stayed with it. Maybe if I'd actually seen shows in the 70's I'd have felt differently about. Who knows?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 11:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Well, I would argue you do know them already...sure they are not simple, and sure they beg definition, BUT the amazing thing is just look around you at "great art" that has stood the test of time...there is a reason my first grade art sculpture isn't on display somewhere, right? I know that sounds silly, but think about it...

Some of the best examples of cross cultural consistency have to do with various cultures ranking sounds and visual displays in very similar fashions...it seems we DO share fundamental notions of what is "good" and what is "not so good"...think of how many times someone said "you have to HEAR this!" and you discovered an entire music genre that after getting past "recently induced/indoctrinated cultural artefact" you did indeed come to appreciate it...

MS can take it from here--I am all worn out.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Mar 5, 2010 9:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: tools of the rules

http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=270514

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 10:39am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: tools of the rules

Thank you.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 5, 2010 11:10am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Sorry--shudda said it's why we have "good museums!" Cultural trivia like the R&R HofF are just that..."bad museums" but therein lays (lies?!) the proof, right? You KNEW that...so, you judged accordingly. You don't scoff at the Louvre, right?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: groovernut Date: Mar 3, 2010 1:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Any 1973 haters: Tell rises to the challenge...

just finished this!

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1973-11-21.sbd.miller.88612.sbeok.flac16

Not bad at all. Sure it has imperfections....
I like the second set also like the broke down. Whats wrong with weather... it's nice!

73's is fine, Hey I guess WT was going to shows back then so maybe he knows something we don't?

I agree Eye's a stellar tune! While 68 is a fine years also there where many great things to follow... To compare eyes with TPS! I don't think so.

Anyway I just try to listen rather than dissect and over analyze. It's no use to try to describe with big words the feel of a show.

This post was modified by groovernut on 2010-03-03 21:27:00

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Shooting Dark Star Date: Mar 3, 2010 1:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Any 1973 haters: Tell rises to the challenge...

Any show with Playin > UJB > Dew > UJB > Playin' is a must listen for me. Just listened to 11-10-73 yesterday and plan on the darkstar from 11-11 tommorow at work. Send your copies to me!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: hippie64 Date: Mar 4, 2010 5:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Any 1973 haters: Tell rises to the challenge...

When i pull up a show from 68-72 for the most part I know what I'm getting. It seems after that (for me anyways) you just never know what your going to get from nite to nite.
Again, for me when Donna started to figure more heavily in the mix, I really am on the edge of my seat with kill switch in hand. There are times when It's perfectly lovely, and well I'm sure I don't have to tell youi about the others.
Since I started visiting the forum I have been able to see that ..."all the years combined "
I have Dead from 65-95, and rarely do I pull anything post 72 for myself, but I have plenty of friends who come to the house and want to hear an 85 Fox Theater Day Job, and well I may suggest 71-72 all nite , they know what they like. And well, who am I to argue ?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: groovernut Date: Mar 3, 2010 12:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Any 1973 haters: Tell rises to the challenge...

Flip Floper! LOL.. Look WT I've been only honest and genuinely ME, GROOVERNUT!

If you are in fact some sort of PM, do your homework. research my posts. You will find that I'm and individual and IMO not such a bad guy.

That said. I will give 73 winderland another listen and see if I agree with your tedious notes...maybe I'll even start hating on 73....

As it stands for me right now 73 is one of those anything can happen transition years. As I said before why paint myself in a corner... there where good 73 shows, I can skip songs... For me Bobby singing less is a blessing.

get yer groove on brother! Maybe all the stress of being a PM has gotten to you old man... take a rest, we will survive. Why do you try to "please" people? What's the point does it make you feel better? I think it's that that you actually want folks to please you. Give up with this bunch your hosed! It's mostly others here telling us interesting stuff, you just add your cheeze not better that anybody else...

Edited because your silly!


This post was modified by groovernut on 2010-03-03 20:36:30

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 4, 2010 12:23pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Any 1973 haters: Tell rises to the challenge...

Hey Grovver--I stand corrected; you are not, apparently, Dan Healy nor the other guy...hughes? But, this biz about I am some sort of sex crazed maniac is what made the comparison stick...I wasn't the only one making it; chalk it up to hysteria of the masses...

So, no problem at all, except I do think you might want to rethink just what our friend Frank was all about with his lyrics...I see him as much more superficial and shock value oriented...don't worry, I've read all there is to read about him, so don't bother quoting it...just a diff of opinion on his significance. Even met a few folks that met him with the MotofInv, and overall, he came off badly in person...I do think he was decent guitar player though.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: RBNW....new and improved! Date: Mar 4, 2010 2:00am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Any 1973 haters: Tell rises to the challenge...

Poodle bites! Poodle chews it!